9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent. [Order per : Mathew John, Member (T)]. - The Respondent is a 100% EOU manufacturing polyester viscose yarn. They supplied such yarn to M/s. Punjab State Handloom Weavers Apex Cooperative Society Ltd, (hereinafter referred to as "WEAVCO") claiming exemption under Notification No. 4/97-C.E., dated 1-3-1997. This exemption was available if such yarn was for use on handlooms. Certain investig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecifically provided in the Notification. Therefore, Revenue was of the view that the clearances made by claiming exemption under Notification No. 4/97-C.E. was with intention to evade payment of duty. Revenue demanded duty amounting to Rs. 6,78,932/- along with appropriate interest. Further penalty under Section 11AC was also proposed. On adjudication of the matter, duty demand of Rs. 6,78,932/- w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns that the notification was not applicable to them and also for the reason that the end-use specified in the notification was not complied with and since goods were diverted for use other than the one specified in Notification No. 4/97-C.E. Regarding eligibility for Notification No. 8/97-C.E. he submits that the respondents use both indigenous raw materials and imported raw materials but the resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... polyester staple fibre or viscose staple fibre during 1997-98 and 1998-99. It was also pointed out that the factory was working under the physical control of excise officers and the excise officers had certified on the AR-4 that the goods were manufactured from indigenous raw material. So they say that they were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 8/97-C.E. 6. We have considered ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that no imported material was used So we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 8. In the case of interest, we find that the payment has been made before 11-5-2001 when Section 11AB got amended. Prior to that, the legal position was that interest is not leviable in the type of cases, as held by the Tribunal in Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. CCE - 2003 (156 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
